The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court
is the highest court in the federal system. It is the only court
specifically established in the Constitution. The Supreme Court
consists of a Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices. The annual
term of the Supreme Court runs from the first Monday in October to
early summer, usually ending in late June or early July.

Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

There are three separate routes that cases follow to
reach the Supreme Court. The first, and least common, is a case under
the Court's "original jurisdiction". "Original jurisdiction" means that
the Supreme Court hears the case directly, without the case going
through an intermediate stage. The original jurisdiction is set forth
in the United States Code.
The Supreme Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear
disputes between different states -- meaning that no other federal
court can hear such a dispute. An example of such a case is the 1998
case of State of New Jersey v. State of New York. In this case, the two states litigated the question of which state had jurisdiction over Ellis Island. "Original jurisdiction" cases are rare, with the Court hearing one or two cases each term.

The most common way for a case to reach the Supreme
Court is on appeal from a circuit court. A party seeking to appeal a
decision of a circuit court can file a petition to the Supreme Court
for a writ of certiorari.
"Certiorari" is a Latin word meaning "to inform", in the sense that the
petition informs the Court of the request for review.

Unlike all other federal courts, the Supreme Court
has discretion to decide which cases it will hear. The Supreme Court
gets thousands of petitions for certiorari, but only issues a writ in a
fraction of cases. The Court will only issue a writ if four of the nine
Justices vote to do so. Justices usually take the importance of a given
case and the need to issue a final decision before deciding to grant
certiorari. If four Justices do not agree to grant certiorari, the
petition is denied. If a case is "denied cert", the decision of the
lower court is final.

The third way in which a case can reach the Supreme
Court is through an appeal from a state supreme court. Each state has
its own supreme court that is the final authority on state law.
(However, each state does not always call its highest court the
"Supreme Court"; for example, in New York, the highest court is the Court of Appeals. For more information: NY State Unified Court System Structure.) The Supreme
Court will generally not challenge a state court's ruling on an issue
of state law. However, the Court will grant certiorari in cases where
the state court's ruling deals with Constitutional issues.

Oral Arguments Before the Supreme Court

Every session of the Supreme Court starts with the words, "Oyez, Oyez, Oyez" , which
signals those attending the proceedings to pay attention. The official
crier continues; "All persons having business before the Honorable, the
Supreme Court of the United States, are admonished to draw near and
give their attention, for the Court is now sitting. God save the United
States and this Honorable Court!" Once that ritual has been completed,
the Court returns to its public business. When the Supreme Court is in
session, Justices generally hear oral arguments.

Oral arguments provide a means for lawyers
representing clients before the Supreme Court to advocate their case
directly to the Justices. After the Justices grant certiorari, the next
step in the process is for the lawyers for both parties to submit
briefs to the Court that argue their case. Additionally, parties that
are not involved in the case but have an interest in the Court's
decision may submit amicus, or friend-of-the-court briefs to support their views. Once this is completed, the Justices schedule the case for oral argument.

At oral argument, the lawyer for each side has a
half-hour to present his case before the nine Justices. Oral arguments
are open to the media and the public, and while they are not televised,
they are often recorded. The Court strictly enforces time limits, which
means that the lawyers representing the parties must sharpen their
arguments in order to present them effectively. Frequently, the
Justices will interrupt the lawyers to ask questions.

Justice Stanley Mosk of the California Supreme Court, writing in The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process,
cited several reasons why oral argument is vital to a court's
deliberation. First, oral argument allows members of the public to hear
judicial proceedings, and gives the media the opportunity to report on
the case. Second, oral argument allows Justices to ask hypothetical
questions in order to gauge what the effect of a decision might be in
practice. Third, oral argument can also help identify issues that were
not properly briefed by the parties. Finally, the give-and-take between
the lawyers and the Justices serves to magnify the strengths and
weaknesses of each side's arguments, and helps Justices resolve their
doubts and concerns about the case. 1

After oral argument is completed, the Justices meet
in closed session to discuss the case. Justices work with their law
clerks to draft the opinions that will be the Court's final decision
about the case. Opinions are lengthy, carefully-written, and
extensively footnoted documents that serve as a record of the Court's
decision on each case.

There are four main types of opinions. The most
important type is the majority opinion. The majority opinion is, as the
name suggests, the opinion of the majority of judges hearing the case.
In most cases, a majority opinion requires five Justices, unless one or
more Justices have recused themselves from a given decision. The
majority opinion is important because it defines the precedent that all
future courts hearing a similar case should follow.

Majority opinions are sometimes accompanied by
concurring opinions. Concurring opinions are written by individual
Justices in the majority. These opinions agree with the majority
opinion, but may stress a different point of law. Sometimes, concurring
opinions will agree with the result reached by the majority, but for a
different reason altogether.

Opinions written by justices not in the majority are
known as dissenting opinions. Dissenting opinions are important because
they provide insight into how the Court reached its decision. In many
instances, the Court has adopted the opinion of a dissenting Justice
years later in reviewing an issue. Sometimes, an opinion may be both a
dissenting and concurring opinion, with a Justice agreeing with the
majority on one issue but not on another.

The fourth, and least common, opinion is the per curiam opinion, a Latin term meaning "by the court". A per curiam opinion is a majority opinion delivered by the Court as a whole, with no individual Justice taking authorship.